781–790 of 927 posts
Looks to me like OpenAI drew their guardrails somewhere along a financial line. Generate a Micky Mouse or a Pikachu? Disney and Pokemon will sue the sh*t out of you. Ghibli? Probably not powerful enough to risk a multimillion years long court battle.
Ghibli isn’t a character, but a style. You can’t copyright it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New rule: you get to keep your belongings for 20 years and that's it. Then they are taken away. Every dollar you made twenty or more years ago, every asset you acquired, gone. That oughtta be enough to incentivize people to work and build their wealth. Anything more than that is unnecessary.
Intellectual property does not belong to you. The entire concept of "owning" intellectual property is a very recent thing. So how about we go back to how it used to be and just remove this entire concept. You can own things you can't own an idea.
Patents are for ideas. Patents do in fact expire far faster than copyrights in the USA. The main problem with patents is patent trolling in the area of software patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All this power! And yet! You are completely ignoring the fact that you can provide so much more information to the LLMs to get what you want. If you truly want novel images, ChatGPT can absolutely provide them, but you have to provide a better starting point than "An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip". If you just provide a teensy bit more information, the results dramatically…
[flagged]
I agree with the sentiment elsewhere in this thread that this represents a "hideous theft machine", but I think even if we discard that, this is still bad. It's very clear that generative has abandoned the idea of creative; image production that just replicates the training data only serves to further flatten our idea of what the world should look like.
Right, the focus is on IP theft, and that’s part of it, but let’s set that aside. How useful is an image generator that, when asked to generate an image of an archaeologist in a hat, gives you Harrison Ford every time? Clearly that’s not what we want from tools like this, even just as tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intellectual property does not belong to you. The entire concept of "owning" intellectual property is a very recent thing. So how about we go back to how it used to be and just remove this entire concept. You can own things you can't own an idea.
I disagree that you can own things, but I certainly concede IP as a good starting point.
Also, can you wash this not-my car I'm driving, that happens to be registered in my name?
Let me know if you will be requiring compensation for not-your time and not-your effort.
You will find the needed cleaning materials at the household goods store down the street. Just walk in, grab whatever you need, and walk out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here, I asked ChatGPT to generate an image using a pith helmet for you: https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzmab6hfxxtrt3atd0jgpg7 You can just ask for whatever changes you want.
> You can just ask for whatever changes you want. Yes, as long as what you're asking for is Indiana Jones.
"A nerdy archaeologist adventurer in a pith helmet, with glasses and a backpack, stumbling his way through a green overgrown abandoned temple. Vines reach for his heels" (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jr0yd810e8xsenp85xy2g47f)
"A nerdy archaeologist adventurer in a pith helmet, with glasses and a backpack, nervously sneaking her way through a green overgrown abandoned temple. She is wearing pink khaki pants, and a singlet" (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jr0z837jecpa770v009bs1m3)
Is it as creative as good humans? Not at all. It definitely falls into tropes readily. But we can still inject novel ideas into our prompts for the AI, and get unique results. Especially if you draw sketches and provide those to the AI to work from.
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…
> I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. Ironically that's probably because the errors and flaws in those generations at least made them different from what they were attempting to rip off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The likeness of Indiana Jones is not protected in any way - as far as I know - that would stop a human artist creating, rendering and selling a work of art representing their creative vision of Indiana Jones. And even more so in a private context. Even if the likeness is protected (“archaeologist, adventurer, whip, hat”) then this protection would only be in certain jurisdictions and that protection is more akin to a…
The likeness of Indiana Jones, as a character, is owned by Disney If they show that image to a jury they’ll have no issues convincing them the LLM is infringing. Moreover if the LLM creators are charging for it, per token or whatever, they are profiting from it. Yes are there jurisdictions were this won’t work and but I think in US Disney lawyers could make viable argument.
With the LLM it would be nothing to do with likeness, it would be to do with the copyright in the image, the film, video or photograph. The image captures the likeness but the infringement would not be around the likeness.
I really, really hope the multimedia-megacorps get together and class-action ChatGPT and every other closed, for-profit LLM corporation into oblivion.
There should not be a two-tier legal system. If it's illegal for me, it's illegal for Sam Altman.
Get to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I train a model to say y=2, and then I ask the model to guess the value of y and it says 2, and you call that overfitting? Overfitting is if you didn't exactly describe Indiana Jones and then it still gave Indiana Jones.
The prompt didn't exactly describe Indiana Jones though. It left a lot of freedom for the model to make the "archeologist" e.g. female, Asian, put them in a different time period, have them wear a different kind of hat etc. It didn't though, it just spat out what is basically a 1:1 copy of some Indiana Jones promo shoot. No where did the prompt ask for it to look like Harrison Ford.